"Well there's a major difference between resolving a lot of
information and looking sharp because edge transitions are pumped
up".

Just in case anyone notices, I haven't posted on camera-specific
questions lately; I guess I just got real tired of being a Sony
hater with a vendetta of some sort. But Dale's very astute observation
prompts me to risk a step back into that arena, because it is the
nature of those edge transitions that have caused so much of the
bad "rap" video has always had (prior to 24p), and still
has in some cameras.

The nature, presence, and management of those unwanted, unnatural
edges are some of our biggest challenges even in 24p, HD production.
So let me tell you a short story. I spent the better part of my
first 10 years in Los Angeles working mostly with Betacam camcorders
doing sitcoms and documentaries. The sports guys who lurk here will
extol the virtues of their favourite Japanese cameras to the skies
because of the crisp, chromatic pictures they get, week in and week
out; some of us call that the CBS football look, some say a very
cartoonish look, in the eyes of most here on CML. Those of us who
have done both know that the latter is the antithesis of our goal
in the former and that finding ways to overcome the natural tendency
of the (Japanese) cameras used there is the goal of every Hollywood
V.C. and DIT. I'd like to think I did that very well.

One day about 15 years ago, I was invited to take a look at a European
camera, a BTS LDK9. After twenty minutes with a camera and MCP (then
with pretty limited, primitive set of controls) I was able to see
a visible difference in the Horizontal and Vertical detail edges;
more natural without the heavy ringing I had been used to. Then,
upon closer inspection, I noticed that with detail (called Contours
in these cameras) OFF, I actually could actually see images without
any visible detail edges. The pumped up transition edges I had previously
noted with the Japanese cameras turned out to be a combination of
inappropriately designed Detail circuits and aliased resolution
caused by inappropriate (for non-sports production) pre detail Aperture "Correction", really just filters that intentionally flatten
the naturally non linear frequency response of the sensors by selectively
reducing the unwanted peaks and adding "ringing" peaks
to the measured response pattern of those sensors. All cameras use
some form of Aperture, but different sensors (FIT, IT, and FT CCDs)
require different degrees of "Correction". Bottom line,
the LDK9 just looked more natural. That got my attention. I ended
up taking a job with them and loved showing people just how great
these cameras, and their subsequent successors, for almost 10 years.
Then I left that job.

The other day, a well-meaning colleague here on CML, once again
attributed, privately, that it is my "vendetta" for Sony
that drives my comments about their relatively inferior Digital,
Detail and Black processing here and elsewhere. While I have definitely
experienced some decidedly poor and unhelpful attitude from past
and present folks in that company AND other camera manufactures
over the years (who hasn't?), it has been that initial epiphany,
and ongoing success with the performance of and the look of the
LDK cameras (for Hollywood AND for sports), not commercial or nationalistic
politics (though I do, obviously, have separate views on those subjects),
that drives my advocacy and cheerleading for the LDK look, especially
when compared to the Japanese options.

I was able to minimize those Betacam/BVP effects (pumped up and
bulbous edge transitions) well enough to keep a number of DP's and
Producers happy over the years, but was never able to achieve the
more natural, film-like contouring of the LDK cameras and never
with the ease achievement with the latter. And this relative difference
of performance continues even with the advent of Digital processing.

Witness the growing body of experience with Viper, with its superior
(relatively more film-like) video and film-out performance.

>A favourite technique of mine
that has worked really well on women who >err, need a little
help, is mammoth over-exposure.

Do you just "print down" afterwards in telecine? Do you
have to adjust the saturation or anything else when you do this?
Just wondering how much overexposure is "mammoth".

Thanks.

Jason Rodriguez
Post Production Artist
Virginia Beach, VA

>A favourite technique of mine
that has worked really well on women who >err, need a little
help, is mammoth over-exposure.

Ditto - I shot a short for a friend and one of the actors was actually
a writer/director doing him a favor as well. She was a little older
and I used this same technique for her tights - she loved it and
hired me to shoot all of her subsequent films...

Brent Reynolds
DP / Film maker / Esteem Booster
Tampa FL

Another option is to light her in such a way as to fill in the wrinkles.

1) Softer light :

a. Big Light close through double diffusion

2) Add additional light from below :

a. Bounce card
b. Additional small fixture (Preferably Soft also)
c. Merrill Oberon Light (Obie light) small onboard or direct
flat light intended to perform the same thing Geoff mentioned but
just on the face does wonders for filling in the wrinkles regardless
of the eyeline.

Keep this lights ratio just below the Key and it will dissolve into
something much more pleasing than News ENG. (This is in addition
to the otherwise "Normal" light set up you would use.)

And to help out with Geoffâ€™s Technique of slight to blatant overexposure.

Turn DCC OFF and lift the Gamma a bit to say +20 This will help
get there faster, and keep the Stop the same place.

Other techniques include :

Intentionally being just out of focus a Bit, and Cut away more often.
Only show the talent the downconverted feed.

Have any of you ever tried to light Jacqueline Bisset

Its OK if you haven't she will tell you exactly how it should be
done.

B. Sean Fairburn
Director of Photography
Castaic Ca

> Just wondering how much overexposure
is "mammoth".

2.5 to 3 stops.

I was getting printer lights of 48, 49, 50 on the MF shoot.

And yes, you just crank the gain down on the TK.

It can get you in serious trouble with the Cintel's, you get what
looks like grain but is in fact video noise.

And Sean is absolutely right about the lighting, only some people
need the lighting AND the overexposure.

I was quite pleased with the tests that I did with Viper with a
little overexposure and then a gentle grade in TK.

I just shot a feature with an older leading actress in HD; besides
turning off the detail, I used a #1 Soft-FX for her close-ups.

I do find that even with detail turned off, something about the
"edginess" of HD can be less flattering on older women.
A little more diffusion and careful lighting will usually solve
the problem -- plus if you plan on transferring to 35mm, the film-out
acts like one more filtering step, compared to how the image looks
on a big HD monitor.

Actually, an odder problem I've been having with HD is that some
actors look "sweatier" and require more powder than you
would with film. I had one young actress who hated wearing much
make-up but we had to show her how shiny she looked on HD to convince
her to let us use some powder.

I will say that sometimes I like the "clean" look of HD
in terms of how faces look, so it's not all negative. Film is more
forgiving though of problematic skin. But I had one young black
actress on "D.E.B.S" that the HD camera really loved.

David Mullen ASC
Cinematographer / L.A.

George C. Palmer wrote :

>I was able to minimize those
Betacam/BVP effects (pumped up and >bulbous edge transitions)
well enough to keep a number of DP's and >Producers happy over
the years, but was never able to achieve the >more natural, film-like
contouring of the LDK cameras and never with >the ease achievement
with the latter.

Having owned couple of LDK series cameras, (91's if I recall ) I
had the benefit of seeing day to day what George talks about. The
cameras got donated to Hampshire college when my partner & I
split up and today they are a little dated in physical design and
light sensitivity. But even today with all the choices of SD cameras
out there that these LDK would still shine in terms of image quality
compared to the rest of the interlace word.

The manufacturer really got the detail 'right' so that you didn't
feel like they were relying on it at all for picture sharpness,
something that S___ has not figured out to this day.

I've shot for all the UK political parties at one time or another,
over 30 political commercials, most of them for Labour or the Lib/Dems,
only a few for the Conservatives.

Mrs T was actually the most reasonable and helpful politician that
I've worked with, all the rest knew better than I did how they should
be shot, well some of them should have been.

One of them, a senior government minister at the time, one who was
very interested in photography and has since had a book on photography
published, tried to get me fired because of my attitude.

He was hassling me about the time I was taking to light him, "it
doesn't take this long at the BBC" my reply of "do you
want to look as bad as you do on the BBC" had him storming
out.

His party lost the election.

Cheers

Geoff Boyle FBKS
Director of Photography
EU Based

Brian Heller writes :

> But on negative, it is there.

And you can really use the shoulder compression to help.

This is of course becoming more and more difficult as the shoulder
moves ever higher.

Cheers

Geoff Boyle FBKS
Director of Photography
EU Based

>A favourite technique of mine
that has worked really well on women who >err, need a little
help, is mammoth over-exposure.

How do you do that in HD? I've seen Varicam footage of overexposed
skin tones and that camera seems to handle them remarkably well,
but I've had a lot of trouble with the F900 clipping skin tones
way too soon.

I often like to let faces "pop" a little brighter and
Sony cameras just don't seem to like that.